“Medical informed consent follows modified Bolam test with judicial override.”
A patient underwent spinal surgery and was not warned of a less than 1% risk of damage to the spinal cord. She suffered paralysis and sued, claiming she should have been warned of this risk.
What is the extent of a doctor's duty to inform patients of risks associated with medical treatment, and whether informed consent requires disclosure of all material risks.
The House of Lords dismissed the patient's appeal. The majority applied a modified Bolam test, holding that the standard of disclosure should generally follow accepted medical practice, but with judicial override for obviously necessary warnings.
Established the UK approach to informed consent, balancing medical professional judgment with patient autonomy. Remains influential despite later developments in Montgomery v Lanarkshire.
You're reading the free summary of Sidaway v Bethlem Royal Hospital. Create a free account to unlock the full reasoning, the cited authorities and the verbatim judgment — plus structured briefs for 412,000+ UK judgments.
No card required. Free forever.
OSCOLA Citation
Sidaway v Bethlem Royal Hospital [1985] AC 871 (HL)
Multiple official and mirror sources — pick whichever loads cleanly on your network.
Falls back to Google for old citations BAILII catalogues separately
Common Room
0 comments · About the Common Room →
No comments yet — start the discussion.
Voted-best comments help future students and feed Caselaw's AI study tools.